I've been working as the Social Media Editor and a staff writer at Forbes since October 2011. Prior to that, I worked as a freelance writer and contributor here. On this blog, I focus on futurism, cutting edge technology, and breaking research. Follow me on Twitter - @thealexknapp. You can email me at aknapp@forbes.com

In one of the most spectacularly mis-prioritized state budgets in recent memory, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (D), is suggesting over $50 million in cuts to education – while preserving $43 million in tax breaks for the Ark Encounter, a creationist amusement park centered around a life-sized Noah’s Ark. The park is sponsored by Answers In Genesis, a non-profit organization that promotes a “literalist” interpretation of the Book of Genesis while promoting an anti-evolution (and other sciences) agenda.

There are a number of reasons why this is a bad idea. First of all, it makes no sense to cut education at this point without reforms that go along with it to ensure that education services don’t suffer as a result. This budget doesn’t do that. Education dollars are an investment in the future – both culturally and economically. Moreover, a tax subsidy in support violates – in spirit if not in letter – the sacred American principle of the separation of Church and State.

Moreover, in a time of austerity, surely it makes most sense to eliminate wasteful subsidies first, rather than essential public services. Especially subsidies that are of dubious value to begin with, whether its this “Ark Park” or a football stadium.

There are religious considerations, too. I’m not an evangelical myself, but hostility to evolution has caused a rift among evangelical Christians. For example, Liberal evangelical Fred Clark has a problem with this and other anti-science promotions by his fellow evangelicals, because he thinks that they’re not only factually wrong, but also drive people away from evangelical churches.

Interestingly enough, this is actually quite an old conflict within the Church. The great Church Father Origen, among others, argued for allegorical interpretations of Genesis. Even back in the 4th century, St. Augustine took his fellow Christians to task for literally interpreting Genesis. He wrote in his, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

This goes back to points that Karen Armstrong made in her tour de force book, The Case for God – the idea that religion isn’t about teaching facts – it’s about teaching truths in the form of mythos. That is, teaching truth in the form of practice and symbolic language. It’s about using poetry and allegory to guide people in understanding the universe and their place in it, whether those allegories are about seven days of creation, the will of Allah, the divine truths of Brahma, achieving Nirvana, or following the Tao.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

First off, I don’t know much about Kentucky education, but in general I think we overspend on primary public education for a reason that you perhaps alluded to- that we never dare to reform the way our schools are run. There is tons and tons of waste in most public schools, and I think there is a lot of room to spend less and educate better, but that’s a different topic.

Next up, the tax break for this group. From the link, this isn’t a mere tax break, or allowing them to operate as a tax-free non-profit (like a church), but an actual tax credit as being a tourist attraction. This is absolutely ludicrous if you ask me, but then again, I don’t live and vote in Kentucky.

But now to the real crux of the matter- whether creationism is bad science and bad theology. First, if it is bad science, it must also be bad theology; for either the world was created by God in 6 literal, 24-hour days or it was not. And if God is truth and I interpret Genesis to say A, but really the intended message was B, then I am bad at theology. Moreover, either the truth is the same as what God intended to communicate, or I can throw all theology out the window.

Now, first- I must assume before I go further that there is a God, and that the Bible is His inspired revelation to mankind, absolutely and entirely true in its original writing (whether we have translation issues is another topic). If you reject this assumption, then fine, but then we’re arguing about different things and won’t come to any consensus.

Now, does the Bible really intend its readers to believe that the earth was created in 6, 24-hour days?

I have to believe the answer is yes, and I’ll give only a couple arguments for why (I believe I’ve heard a lecture from this same institute in question, and they made some quite compelling arguments).

First, the language- The language used in Genesis is consistent with the language used in the rest of the Hebrew scriptures (including, importantly those Hebrew scriptures of a historical nature) referring to 24-hour days. Metaphorical or allegorical “days” are also used in scripture, but the language is different. Phrases like “there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day” are only used when talking about literal days.

Secondly, Pauline Christian theology thoroughly prevents general concepts of macro-evolution occuring before man existed, specifically because such evolution would require death. Paul clearly states that through Adam’s sin was death brought into the world. The account of Genesis backs this up- the Bible consistently teaches that their was no death before the fall of man. If this were the case, while the world might be very old indeed (Genesis 1:2 may hint at this), we could not have had the survival of the fittest and the cycle of reproduction, mutation, and death required for macro-evolution. It simply goes against the thoroughly biblical doctrine of original sin.

Now, we can make arguments from scientific OBSERVATION (for if it isn’t based on observation, it really isn’t science at all) for or against the creation account, but rejecting creationism scientifically must be followed by rejecting at least one of my assumptions- specifically, you’d have to reject (at least) that the Bible is inspired of God, for the Bible clearly teaches a literal creation. There are plenty of metaphors and allegories in scripture, but the plain reading of the text does not in any way indicate that Genesis is an example of this.

So, I am arguing that Genesis is clearly teaching a literal account of creation occuring in 6, 24-hour days. I am also saying that if you reject this account scientifically, you must also theologically reject the inerrancy of scripture (or at least the canonization of Genesis and any others that assume the truth of accounts in Genesis).

The remaining question is could the Genesis account be the correct one? I would argue that it could. No facts or observations have been made that would invalidate it (in truth, it would be almost impossible to invalidate it, as the claim is that God created the earth in such a way that it looked old. This is in the text, as there is every indication that as soon as God created the stars, they were quite visible- no waiting around for years before seeing the stars).

The baseline assumption then becomes whether or not you believe in a God, and if so, whether that God might be active in our world. If He is, then there is really no reason to disbelieve in any of the miracles in the Bible.

As you note, Kentucky should not be subsidizing a creationist theme park. I would go further, however, and note that “creationism” as the term normally is used has been disproved.

First, as you note, science provides ways to test the creation story of the Bible. In doing so, that story can be disproven. Unrefuted evidence evolution of man, as well as that of other species, has disproven the creation account, and so you should be rejecting your initial assumption(s).

Second, even if you wanted to retain those assumptions and attempted to interpret the scientific evidence accordingly, that too must fail. Genesis cannot be the clear and illuminated word of God because Genesis is internally inconsistent; the separate orders of events in chapter 1 and chapter 2 cannot be reconciled. Chapter 1 claims that plants and animals were made before humans, yet Chapter 2 states that Adam was God’s first creation. Those statements cannot both be true. For that reason, Genesis cannot be a literal account of creation.

Of course, the textual argument is needed only if one rejects all of the empirical evidence disproving the account(s) of Genesis.

Sorry; I forgot to also note that your conclusion that “[t]he baseline assumption then becomes whether or not you believe in a God, and if so, whether that God might be active in our world” does not lead to “[i]f He is, then there is really no reason to disbelieve in any of the miracles in the Bible.” Even if one starts with both of those assumptions, your conclusion simply begs the question as to which “God” is active in the world and gives no reason to elevate the God of the Bible over Allah, Buddha, Zeus, or even that internet favorite, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Your logic is deeply flawed. 1) You may believe in any god you want, but you can’t assume that one exists, just because you believe it to be true. 2) Science is based on observable data, and testable explanations. 3) The world was not created in 6 days. Science and the laws of physics deem this impossible. We can observe the entire life cycle of stars, happening now, in the skies above. Yet, you choose to believe in a fable, which is your right. But, don’t pass off your belief as science or logical. 4) The true mysteries of life and our spirit are open to your observation. Nature displays them, if you look close enough. And, nature and science are in perfect agreement.

Its ironic that your argument that the Bible is the literal truth is in fact an example why we need to spend more on education. Stop living in fear. God doesn’t need the Bible. The truths in the Bible doesn’t need the Bible to be taken literally. If you do decide to improve your arguement. 1) Please define what God is. If its your intention to prove something exists, please define up front what it is your arguing for (or against). 2) If you are going to use the Bible in your argument that the Bible is the literal truth, please define which one. Might be a good idea if you can list why the others are not to be believed. There has got to be 50 different versions in the English language alone. 3) While its interesting that you try to remind us that we cannot observe what happened in the past, you are actually wrong! Thanks to telescopes and radios we can observe something like 14 Billion years ago. Give or take a few Billion. (note: we are talking way way way way past 5000 years ago – not even close. No there is not room for error on this one). 4) An interesting foot note would be to explain why the Catholic church and Judaism, with their collective thousands of years of research and study, and their finding of no conflict between science and the Bible is flawed. 5) Oh, might I suggest another footnote that explains why other texts, like the Book of Mormon are flawed, even if those text internally are consistent.

As for your “it’s possible” argument. There is a difference between “it’s possible” and “it’s probable”. Just because those flashing lights in the sky ‘could’ be a alien UFO, doesn’t mean I have any reason to believe it was in fact aliens.

In order to crush any doubt about the literal truth of the Bible, you must crush any thought of inconsistency.

Its pretty bad for you if you don’t. You have argued that because God exists and the Bible is the literal truth of God and its impossible that something in the Bible is not the literal truth. So if you find one thing… just one thing that is not literally the truth. Not only must you reject the Bible, but someone lied to you. Because God is incapable of lying to you, you must also reject that God exists (at least a truthful God). Sucks to be you. And I understand your fear. Even if you could dismiss some parts of the Bible as being a metaphor or mythos, you are stuck with if Genesis isn’t literal truth, then there is no original sin, and no reason for Jesus and thus in your mind Christianity collapses. Trust me on this, the fear is only in your mind. God doesn’t need the Bible and certainly doesn’t need the Bible to be literal truth. That’s your thing. His disciples said to Him : “When will the Kingdom come?” Jesus said : “It does not come by expecting it. It will not be a matter of saying : ‘See, it is here !’ or : ‘Look, it is there !’. Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread over the earth and men do not see it.”

As noted in the article, rejecting the inerrancy of scripture started way back in the 4th century. Or don’t you read the articles you are commenting on. The point is, that “argument” (it’s not, it has no provable premises) is rejected even by some of your own early saints.

I wanted to reply separately to this. First off, I did read the article, but didn’t think that minor point was worth discussing.

Do you assume that I must agree with everything said by an early saint? I’m not even Catholic, for crying out loud, but must I either agree or disagree in total? Augustine had his good points- he put Pelagius in his place, and he and Athanasius were on the money when it comes to trinitarianism. And I loved “Confessions” and “City of God” is on my wish list. But I disagree with him on the doctrine of water baptism. I might also disagree with him on the interpretation of Genesis.

I haven’t read the work that was referenced here, but Augustine did have a tiff (he wrote about it in “Confessions”, which I highly recommend) with a cult of looney astrologists. He was one of them until he got to meet and discuss with the leader, at which point he rejected their doctrines. It is possible the comments quoted are in reference to this, but I cannot be sure. The name of the leader and the group doesn’t come to mind, but again, you can read all about it.